The Orthodox Church and Original Sin- Tenny Thomas

The Epistle of Romans is St. Paul's magnum opus While it's not the systematic
theology text that some make it out to be, it is his most theological and most
systematic epistle.It's in this chapter that Paul writes most specifically about
the inherited nature of sin, and it is from this passage that St. Augustine gets
his material for 'inherited guilt'. Romans 5:12-19 reads: "Therefore, just as
sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way
death came to all people, because all sinned -- For just as through the
disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the
obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous".

Technically speaking, in their writings the Eastern Fathers and Orthodox
theologians do not use the Latin term introduced by Augustine in his treatise
"De Peccato originali", but instead translate this concept by means of two
cognate terms in Greek, namely, progoniki amartia and to propatorikon amartima,
which is properly translated "ancestral sin". These terms allow for a more
careful nuancing of the various implications contained in the one Latin term.[1]

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and
the West is:

In the Orthodox Faith, the term 'original sin' refers to the 'first' or
'ancestral' sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the
'consequences' of sin, which is death. Here the word 'original' may be seen as
synonymous with 'first' or 'ancestral'.Hence, the 'original sin' refers to the
'first sin' or 'ancestral sin'.[2]

In the West, humanity likewise bears the 'consequences' of the 'original sin' of
Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise
'guilty' of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term 'Original Sin' here refers to the
condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as
consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the
consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal
guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action;
we bear the consequences, which is death.[3]

John Karmiris writes that 'the sin of the first man, together with all of its
consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the
entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, no
one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a
completely sinless day'.[4]

The Orthodox Church cannot agree with Augustine, when he says that humans are
under a 'harsh necessity' of committing sin in his City of God. The image of God
is distorted by sin but never destroyed and because we still retain the image of
God we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope. Orthodoxy
repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for freedom.
However, we agree with the West that sin had set up a barrier which humanity by
its own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God.
Since we could not come to God, He came to us. With all that said I do recommend
works of Augustine for Orthodox believers.

It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam's personal
sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human
race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity, we participate in it by
virtue of our participation in the human race. St. Cyril of Alexandria says:
"The imparting of 'First Sin/Ancestral Sin/ Original Sin' by means of natural
heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature,
and of the homoousiotitos of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one
mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the
imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him
is rendered explicable: 'Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to
the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption'".[5]

[1] Original Sin in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford, 2005).

[2] Fr. Anthony Hughes, 'View of Sin in the Early Church: Ancestral Versus
Original Sin'.

[3] Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise
Exposition, trans. Hieromonk Seraphim Rose (Platina, Calif.: St. Herman of
Alaska Brotherhood, 1994).

[4] John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic
Church, trans. from the Greek by the Reverend George Dimopoulos (Scranton, PA.:
Christian Orthodox Edition, 1973), pp. 35-36.

[5] Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 - From
Augustine to the eve of the Reformation.

Tenny Thomas, New York

The Friars walk: a story of a journey & goodness

A heart-warming article was published in the Washington Post of a 6-week, 300-mile journey that six Franciscan friars began in Virginia until they reached a friary in Washington, D.C., called the 'Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land'.

The article talks of several examples of goodness they encountered to anyone who wanted to listen, and ends with an inspirational (although non-religious) message that "Anything can happen when you live in the moment, one step at a time".

Oldest known Bible goes online ... does it change your belief?

Several news agencies (including this from CNN) are reporting on the British Library bringing online the world's oldest known Christian Bible. However, the 1,600-year-old handwritten Codex Sinaiticus is different than Bibles that are commonly found at home, including books that are not part of the accepted Old and New Testament.

Rather than dismiss this as error or conspiracy, we hope all Christians take a moment to reflect and understand how and why the pre-denominational Church undertook the process of Canonization of the Bible.

The Bible did not fall from the sky, nor did writers get possessed by God to pick up quills and begin writing in trance-like states. The printing also did not begin in the middle ages of Europe. If understood, accusations that the Apostolic Churches are not Scriptural are easily dismissed as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church indeed came together to agree on the Books.

This process spanned several centuries, and included councils (small and Great), eloquent defenses on the Faith, prayer and the blood of several martyrs ... culminating in the Church agreement on the books of the Old and New Testaments.

What's most important to understand is our early Church fathers and Saints did not undertake the canonization process in an attempt to rationalize and define who God was, but rather to defend the Truth revealed by Christ. The Church needed to definitely state who God was not in order for the Church to continue to grow and make disciples of all men (Matthew 28:19-20). Literally our lives today depended on numerous acts of the pre-denominational Church during those first hundreds of years after Christ's Resurrection.

Voting with Their Feet

During an interfaith dialogue in Mumbai, Hindu and Catholic leaders denounced religious conversions and recent anti-Christian violence in Kandhamal district in India.

[…]

The Hindu pontiff, Jayendra Saraswati, pointed to "conversion" as the chief reason for the growing violence on minorities. He sought an assurance from the Catholic Church to halt such activities. Catholic leaders denied engaging in any proselytizing and blamed Protestants.

Not every conversion is a “forced” conversion. The term “forced conversion” seems to run the gamut from providing food and shelter in exchange for attending a Church service (or possibly suggesting it) all the way to REAL coercion at gunpoint. If Hindus are being converted to Christianity by violence, this is wrong, according to the Christian standard. Otherwise, shouldn’t people be free to choose between religions of their own accord. There would be no religion, native or otherwise anywhere unless that were the case.

Even if India has a many thousand year history of Hinduism at some point, people freely chose to be so just as later they’d freely choose to be Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. Even within Christianity, we Orthodox Christians see people leaving our Church steadily for the charismatic movement. How can we blame them if we ourselves are not offering them the depth and fulfillment our Faith is capable of providing? If there truly is no compulsion, then this is the most free democratic result of people being able to think freely. If a religion, Christian, Hindu, or otherwise is seeing people leave of their own free will, then it is that faith tradition’s responsibility to convince its wayward sheep to stay.

-Steve K.

"Knowing About" and "Participation in"

We are all so often deceived into the trap of dividing Christianity up into the “ritual” and the “necessary.” The Eucharist along with the other Sacraments are discarded as “ceremony” because of their scripted nature and repetitiveness while believing in a handful of central truths like the Resurrection and the Trinity are all that’s needed. If the intellectual exercise of belief were all that was necessary, then why did Christ even command us to be baptized? Is one born again in the waters of baptism or is he or she born again when the choice is made to be baptized? Obviously at least one “ritual” has been demanded by Christ as a “condition” for Salvation (John 3:5).

The point is that Christianity is not simply an act of knowing a certain truth, but active participation in that truth. So often this is abstracted to have a social meaning, that is to say doing good deeds, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and other certainly righteous acts. However, the Orthodox concept of Sacrament is not restricted to that, but also to real participation in Christ. We are baptized into death and resurrection with Christ as He was also baptized. We participate in the once and for all Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in the Eucharist. We are given the gift of the Holy Spirit in Chrysmation just as Christ gave the Disciples the gift of Spirit at the Pentecost. Just knowing about these acts of Christ is far different from having them realized in our lives in the here and now- which is to say through the Sacraments.

-Steve K.

Orthodox Priest Candidate Suspended from Clerical Duties

This article with the title above normally signals men behaving badly .. however, in this case, the Finnish Orthodox Church took a courageous and strong stand to divide Church and politics.

The story reports how the Finnish Orthodox Church's Council of Bishops has ruled that Mitro Repo may not serve as a priest while he is running for the European Parliament or if he wins a seat. The bishops explained that participation in political activity violates the tradition of the Orthodox Church canon. They added that a Member of the European Parliament wearing priestly attire would place the Finnish church into a questionable position internationally.

Especially as politics and religion in America, India and elsewhere grow uncomfortably more and more entwined, the Finnish Orthodox stance and explanation that points back to the original Church teachings (Matthew 22:18-22) is wonderful. It's clear in the Holy Scripture and the early Church teachings that Christ was neither a politician nor a power-monger, and it's time for all Christians to understand this point.

But arguably the most thought-provoking point from the article was Mitro Repo's acceptance of the ruling and his statement that "the council had made a wise decision".

It's kind of like MySpace except it's for Orthodox Christians and those interested in Orthodox Christianity.

After reading reddit. i found this cool site. It like a myspace for Orthodox Christians.
Take a look. http://www.orthodoxcircle.com/

Anil George
St. Mary's Malankara Orthodox Syrian Cathedral of Philadelphia